641 posts in this topic

Ben Masada 213

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

and then 19,810

Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

Member

19,810

21,609 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Land's End

"evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards"

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

As believers celebrate his resurrection I can say that my Lord gave Himself to be killed. No one took His life. The politics of his execution have been used down the centuries to spread hate and violence, which is what the deceiver does with all good acts if he can.

The story on this Easter is not how He died but that HE IS RISEN!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

MysteryX 2

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

To fulfill PSALMS 22 of the Jewish Tanakh of the Masoretic Text. Note: this was written by King David 970 years before Jesus

was hung on a cross and is in every Jewish Bible to this day.

Psalms 22 shown below was written by King David almost 1,000 years before the birth of Jesus.

If you read all of Psalms 22 you see were it also states, Stand in awe of him all you sons of Israel, sons of Jacob. Stand in Awe of who? The one who was killed in Psalms 22 as written by King David.

Psalms: Chapter 22

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? why are you so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?

2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but you hear me not; and in the night season, I am not silent.

3 But you art holy, O thou that inhabits the praises of Israel.

4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and you did deliver them.

5 They cried unto you, and were delivered: they trusted in you and were not forsaken.

6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

7 All they that see me laugh and scorn me: they shoot out the lip, they shake their head, saying,

8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

9 But you are he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mothers breasts.

10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mothers belly.

11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.

Isaiah 45-21-23

21 Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.

22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.

John 14:9

9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 20:26-28

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Paranoid Android 5,582

Your theory fails in one key area. You say that some "pious forgery" was required in order to justify Constantine in 312 AD. The problem for your theory is that the texts of the New Testament were written more than two centuries earlier.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lion6969 80

Your theory fails in one key area. You say that some "pious forgery" was required in order to justify Constantine in 312 AD. The problem for your theory is that the texts of the New Testament were written more than two centuries earlier.

And there were many texts not included in the new testament, pious forgery or selective reading?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 2,591

Forum Divinity

Member

2,591

22,787 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Well, traditionally jesus died so that we might live. Jesus had at least three roles on earth. One was a template for how man can think and live. Second was as a teacher of wisdoms and truths.

Third, but perhaps most important in christian theology, he was the sacrificial lamb whose blood washed away original sin and cleansed us all. (Every human being; past present and future)) His sacrifice allowed each one of us to stand as "clean skins", clothed in his righteousness, and be judged on our own individual hearts, and minds and deeds.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

White Crane Feather 4,959

Seeker79

Member

4,959

13,405 posts

Gender:Male

Location:California

Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

CommunitarianKevin 442

Jesus was crucified because of the misunderstanding of the word "Messiah." Messiah could mean king of the Jews (what the Romans thought) or God's annointed one. The Romans had a problem with someone proclaiming themself king...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Beckys_Mom 4,029

Sarcastic Muppet..!

Member

4,029

51,128 posts

Gender:Female

Location:Ireland

"I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Your theory fails in one key area. You say that some "pious forgery" was required in order to justify Constantine in 312 AD. The problem for your theory is that the texts of the New Testament were written more than two centuries earlier.

Is it not true that many Jewish people not believe that Jesus was ever crucified ? Like the OP ?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Paranoid Android 5,582

And there were many texts not included in the new testament, pious forgery or selective reading?

1- That other texts may or may not exist is irrelevant to the premise of the OP. The thread starter suggested the premise that the crucifixion was a "pious forgery" after that time. Since texts predate that event by several centuries, the conclusion of the OP is flawed. Therefore Constantine made no "forgery", at worst a text was selectively chosen.

2- Yes, many texts were not included in the New Testament. However, in regards to the crucifixion, the gospels are the texts of particular note. As early as the mid-2nd Century AD early Christians were adamant that there were only four true gospels, so when the Council of Nicaea was convened it was natural for them to choose only four. It stands to reason then that the four earliest written gospels ended up being chosen. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent the four earliest texts (possible exception of Thomas, some scholars argue an early date for that, while others maintain a 2nd Century date). It's common sense, if the four earliest written gospels are accepted over gospels that date well over a hundred years after Jesus were used.

The ironic thing here is that some people who argue "what about the other gospels" also argue in the very next sentence about how late the gospels were written (Mark, the earliest gospel, written approximately 40 years after Jesus). But they don't really care that the gospels that were not included are sometimes more than a hundred years after Jesus. To use a phrase, it's like they want to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they demand to know why the earliest gospel is 40 years after the event, but they then turn and ridicule the non-inclusion of other texts despite those dating 100+ years after the event. And to play Devil's Advocate, if all the gospels were included, these same people would ridicule the council of Nicaea for not being more discerning in their choices. They'll mention how some gospels were indeed written more than a hundred years after the event, and demand to know why the council didn't take this into consideration.

Honestly, I've heard of win/win scenarios, but for sceptics, in the case of Nicaea they seem to have a win/win/win situation, regardless of what actually happened in the 4th Century. I wish us believers had it so easy

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Paranoid Android 5,582

Is it not true that many Jewish people not believe that Jesus was ever crucified ? Like the OP ?

Whether some people did or did not believe in Jesus' crucifixion is irrelevant to the point I made. And before you say "No, it isn't irrelevant", please read further to see my reasoning. The OP states that Constantine engaged in "pious forgery" in order to write in a crucifixion. However, the texts that support a crucifixion date centuries before Constantine ever existed. Therefore he could not possibly have forged them, or ordered them forged.

Does that mean that the crucifixion happened? No, it might have been a 1st Century forgery or myth. Nevertheless, the point is, in terms of the OP, Constantine had nothing to do with the forgery. At best it can be said that he chose texts that supported his stance at the expense of other non-crucifixion texts. And I say "at best", because after studying Nicaea I do not think this to be the case. But my own beliefs are irrelevant also. The claim that Constantine was involved in "pious forgery" to invent a crucifixion is simply unsustainable in the face of textual evidence to the contrary.

~ Regards,

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sonofman 0

A careful reading of the New Testament reveals that Jesus permitted the crucifixion because his Father wanted him to permit it. The real question is why did his Father want Jesus to submit to the crucifixion? I can think of a couple reasons:

To prove that resurrection is real

To let Jesus experience a painful death alone (his Father didn't comfort him on the cross), because in pain man is perfected, even the Son of man

To earn the right to represent God and receive all authority from his Father to take charge of us.

Notice I leave out "to die for our sins", because that makes no sense (believe me, I searched the entire bible). However, he did say that his death was for remission of sin, so we have to hold this in tension. Nevertheless, it's very clear from the New Testament that what Jesus was offering us was the greatest gift from God we could receive: eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and pure joy in the world the come. To whatever degree Jesus' death helped him and us in that regard, we should be grateful.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Beckys_Mom 4,029

Sarcastic Muppet..!

Member

4,029

51,128 posts

Gender:Female

Location:Ireland

"I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Paranoid Android 5,582

STOP.......I am not getting at your posts PA the points you made ...I am trying to tell you something..and I was only asking you a fair question

I'll PM it...

I'll check my inbox when it comes, though I'm just headed to bed and probably won't read it until later today (and if I read, I won't respond until later). As to your question, the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross is as far as I am aware a relatively new idea. I am no historian so I cannot point to any specific sources, but from what I was aware even the earliest critics of Christianity accepted the crucifixion as an actual event to which Jesus did die.

But regardless of those who do or do not believe Jesus died, the point is not relevant to the OP, which suggests Constantine forged documents to insert a crucifixion and resurrection into the story. That is simply unsupportable. That's all I was saying

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

Jesus was crucified because he was the Paschal Lamb, that would be slaughtered so that others through him might live.

The Passover Lamb or the Paschal Lamb is the sacrifice that the Torah mandates to be brought on the eve of Passover, and eaten on the first night of the holiday with bitter herbs and matzo. According to the Torah, it was first offered on the night of the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt. The blood of this sacrifice sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites was to be a sign to God, when the angel of death passed through the land to slay the first-born of the Egyptians that night, that he should pass by the houses of the Israelites.

That the Paschal Lamb prefigured symbolically Jesus Christ, "the Lamb of God", who redeemed the world by the shedding of His blood and in so doing protects us against the judgement of God for our sins.

There are no innocents , not even Pilate who washed his hands, the most cowardly of acts. No-one is lessening his guilt, to the contrary it heightens it. Woe to the man who can do good, and does not, he is as much the murderer as the man who does the killing.

As for the church of later ages, their guilt is theirs to carry for all eternity, they were seduced by power in this world, forgetting that God is the ruler of all, not they. That seduction was deep, for they were seduced by power, and power corrupts all it touches.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Shiloh17 1,384

And what are these lines supposed to prove? All they've succeeded in showing so far is that you probably haven't read the book of Isaiah in context.

It should prove to the op, that he was mentioned in prophesy, fulfilled prophesy, and when he came, instead of accepting him, they crucified him. He was crucified because they Jewish didn't believe he was the Messiah according to scripture.

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, he gave his back to the smiters,they pierced him, tried to give him vinegar to drink, all according to the old testament scriptures and verified by new testament scriptures. As for who he said he was, he didn't stutter.

As for your comment "All they've succeeded in showing so far is that you probably haven't read the book of Isaiah in context". It shows you haven't read the Bible in context.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Realm

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arbitran 798

It should prove to the op, that he was mentioned in prophesy, fulfilled prophesy, and when he came, instead of accepting him, they crucified him. He was crucified because they Jewish didn't believe he was the Messiah according to scripture.

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, he gave his back to the smiters,they pierced him, tried to give him vinegar to drink, all according to the old testament scriptures and verified by new testament scriptures. As for who he said he was, he didn't stutter.

As for your comment "All they've succeeded in showing so far is that you probably haven't read the book of Isaiah in context". It shows you haven't read the Bible in context.

I have read the Bible, in context: many times. None of the "prophecies" which you cited, are, in fact, prophecies. In fact, if you had read the book of Isaiah, you would see that the "suffering servant" was in fact the nation of the Israelites, who were brought out of Egypt. In the Isaiah passage, king Ahaz fears an imminent attack by two enemies. The birth of the child in verse 7:14 is part of a promise from Yahweh that the lands of the two enemies feared by Ahaz will be deserted “before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” (Isaiah 7:15) So obviously the child was to be born during the time of this conflict, which is well before the birth of Jesus. And surely Jesus, if he truly was god, would have already known “how to refuse the evil and choose the good” so the Isaiah child, who has to learn these things, cannot possibly be identified with Jesus.

"...the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 'Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.' But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.' Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria." ~ Isaiah 7:10-17

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Shiloh17 1,384

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

If they were, and are to be fulfilled, some of the Psalms are indeed prophesies. Learn your Bible, and leave me alone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arbitran 798

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

If they were, and are to be fulfilled, some of the Psalms are indeed prophesies. Learn your Bible, and leave me alone.

I have learned the Bible, and it is a farce.

I will leave you alone if you desire: it only serves as clear confirmation that you have no convincing argument to present here.